23 June 2011 11:29 AM

The excuse industry at work

Christopher Charles states: ’Annie was sexually abused by her father from the age of 11 to 16. She bore him a child which was taken into care. Unable to bear the abuse any longer, Annie let herself fell into the clutches of a man twice her age who it transpired was a pimp. She was prostituted out to five or six men a day and was anaesthetised with heroin. She became an addict. She has carried on being an addict for the next twenty years. [She is now in her late thirties and has been in and out of prison countless times.] Finally by dint of her own efforts and that of outside agencies she has finally got herself drug free. 'Annie' [I've changed her name] is one of thousands. Ask any social worker or health visitor or prison officer. And PH has the effrontery to claim that 'all' addicts submit to their addiction willingly. He needs to get out more and talk to some real people before loftily proclaiming such loathsome prejudices as though they bore the stamp of fact.’

Let us examine this statement. It begins with a series of repellent criminal assaults on ‘Annie’. I am, I must say, dismayed that the ‘abuse’ continued after the incestuous child was taken into care, for presumably by then the authorities knew of the abuse and the culprit should have been in prison for a long stretch. There he could not have continued the abuse. . Perhaps he, too, had lots of excuses for his behaviour and so was left at liberty by our excuse-making injustice system, to continue abusing his daughter. I hope nobody imagines that I am in favour of that.

The assaults on ‘Annie’ are appalling. But Mr Charles seems to assume that these events have robbed ‘Annie’ of the power to choose.

Note how in this account ‘Annie’ is always the subject of passive verbs, or a person apparently without a will of her own. She ‘lets herself fall’. She is ‘prostituted’. Mr Charles is so used to making excuses for wrongdoing that he does not write, as I would have done, that the father of this girl abused her. He writes that she was abused by him. Even someone whose actions he must hate or despise is not described in the active voice, the passive having become so habitual in his excuse-making mind.

In the world of excuses, everybody is passive, nobody has any power of will, decision or resistance, all is fore-ordained by previous abuse, maltreatment etc, back to the beginning of time. Nobody is ever responsible, and none of us has any duty to overcome evil circumstances.

Annie now ‘lets herself fall’ into the clutches of a pimp. Lets herself fall? Did she have no choice about this? The language is obscure, and I believe deliberately so.

She ‘was prostituted’. How exactly is this different from ‘she decided to become a prostitute’. Was she forced? How? Was there truly no choice in our welfare state? Did she never have any opportunity to take up any other life? The passive, will-free language, crammed with the assumption that nobody is ever to blame for anything they do, makes it impossible to tell.

And then she ‘was anaesthetised’ with heroin. Anaesthetised? Against what? By whom? Was a professional anaesthetist present? Was it a measured dose? Did she consent? Or was she held down by force while the drug was administered?

Bah. Humbug. Tell us what actually happened in good honest English, would you please, Mr Charles.

This slippery, misleadingly medicalised , passive euphemism tells us nothing about the crucial events. I suspect that this is because it would confirm my original statement that so annoyed Mr Charles, namely that all heroin abusers take the drug because they want to, because they enjoy taking it, in spite of the fact that they are well aware it is both illegal and wrong.

I do not in fact ‘claim’ that ‘addicts’ ‘submit to their “addiction” willingly’. I should have thought Mr Charles would know by now that I do not believe that there is any such thing as addiction, an excuse made up for people who are not prepared to control their appetites for harmful pleasures. Nor is what say a ‘claim’. If Mr Charles has any objective evidence for the existence of a medical condition which could be called ‘addiction’, in any way distinguishable from a weak will, I would like to hear it.

One other thing

The wearisome obtuseness of atheist bores would be funny if it didn’t take up so much space. Why can’t these people just accept that belief or unbelief in God is a choice? Why can’t they accept that they have chosen unbelief because they greatly dislike and fear the idea that their private actions may be judged by an absolute standard?

Well, the answer to that’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? That would involve admitting that their belief is a selfish scuttle away from justice, rather than a grand assertion of intellectual purity. Hence their flight from the idea of choice, and the shutdown of their logical processes anywhere near the point where this might need to be acknowledged.

The daft ‘argument’ about change in someone’s pocket could only be advanced by someone who had wilfully misunderstood this point. It is possible to discover by objective enquiry how much change someone has in his pocket. It is not possible to discover if God exists.

Gosh, is that clear now? Of course not.

The wilful closure of a human mind is a tragic thing.

For example: I’m told: ‘You have said that if I asked you how much money I had in my pocket and you did not know, you could 'choose' to believe that it was £4.20.’

No, I haven’t. The choice only exists because the truth cannot be objectively determined. The person has to invent statements I have never made, and could not have made, to support his dismal ‘argument.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sadly, Mr Doyle, I must confess to be more in the camp of Peter Preston - see his post on the thread 'Prohibition blues' at 11.03pm, 9 July, where he sets out his case for asking 'interesting' questions rather than offering solutions. And, as usual, he presents his case far more eloquently than mine.

Expertese? I couldn't even spell it right Mr Thomas . I am expert in nothing, that's why I read Hitchens blog and books. I have learnt much from reading the words of our host, who, in my opinion, should be chief adviser to the Home Office and more even. At the same time I have learnt nothing from folk such as (Hugh, I got that one wrong, but I think the Scots use Hue) Grant, Greer. Abbot, Harmen (though she is dangerous). How long before we get the other Grant (the odious Russel) on QT?
You ask lots of questions Mr Thomas, which is fine, though it would be nice to hear more of your opinions, then perhaps we could ask you to clarify eh?.

i grant Mr Hitchens that "addiction" is an overused term, and often used as a crutch. But the physiological changes brought about by certain chemicals are not easily dismissed. If there is no such thing, perhaps Mr Hitchens would subject himself to a few rounds of heroin or repeat sessions wtih a crack pipe to prove his point? Nicotine is addictive, and knowing that, the manufacturers have perfected the perfect delivery system to keep those who try it in thrall until they die. Not utterly impossible to quit, but close enough to count as an additction in my book.

Bob, son of Bob - OK, I'm sorry, I got carried away, but it was because I honestly do fear that attributing good genes to some people and bad genes to other is indeed highly dangerous as you yourself intimate. And I find it frightening.

Perhaps that isn't the point you are making. If you are saying that some people, for whatever reason, are pretty evil-minded -I agree. The danger, I think, is attributing it to their genes. Because even criminals and murderers have been known to reform and to become "good" people. Without any change to their genes - I presume.

It is not right to categorize people as inferior or superior (e.g. Aryans and Jews according to Göring) by blaming their genetic make-up. Whatever their genes, people may behave morally rightly or wrongly. At least that is what I think, but I'm not an expert on this subject either.

And I also think that the dog-analogy is flawed. Pit-bulls and poodles definitely have different inherent characteristics (I think) - but whether this is because of their genes - I don't know. I believe, if we can believe the doggy-people, that some pitbulls ans "Staffies" can be loving animals. But I wouldn't trust them.

I wouldn't trust some humans either - but probably in a different social environment, with different experiences and different upbringing they would act differently. It's not just the genes - I think.

Incidentally, since when did one need to be a 'world renowned politics expert' to appear on QT?

Posted by: Alan Thomas | 08 July 2011 at 05:20 PM

It was tongue in cheek, and I have nothing against Mr Grant, but horses for courses and all that. Is it too much to expect and require, that those who presume to pontificate about politics; should at least have some expertise on the subject. Mr Grants views are no more qualified than my own, so why should I pay any attention to them? I can hear unqualified views down my local pub any time.
It seems that being a victim of some wrongdoing or whatever is all the qualification you need these days to become expert on the causes and remedies of a whole host of crimes, and appear on (what used to be anyway) serious discussion programs.
Garry Newloves widow is made a baroness, and is regarded as an expert on street crime for telling us all only what we already knew, and Peter Hitchens has been saying for years before. As much as I feel sorry for Mrs Newlove, I don't think she, or any other victim inspired expert (such as the parents of Steven Lawrence), is (are) qualified to give the nation advise on any subject. The good case (from Grant) made on the radio: Did you really hear anything new and innovative?; probably not.
Here's my opinion Mr Thomas, (as much qualified as show stealer Hue Grants): All crime should be punished, and Murderers and rapists should be executed. Oh! and by the way: The BBC IS hopelessly biased.
have a nice day.

I think in general Bob is right. Psychologists agree that characteristics like being neurotic (or a predisposition to be) are inherited. If you want to find out more you could read something by Eysenck (the father, his son is also a pyschologist).

I think they now say that about 50% (on average) of characteristics are inherited and 50% caused by things like the environment.

D Bunker - We can all see that you are angry, but as none of us can assign an exact value to your anger, does that mean it does not exist? In hospital the nurse asks what is the pain level from 1-10. As the exact mathematical value is not known, is this question therefore invalid? Of course not.

The values I gave were for the feelings experienced by the animal or person, not the values of the genes.

A mugger experiences a relatively small level of unease about invading another person's space and violating his right to be undisturbed, and of causing him distress, and of provoking a retaliation.

A person with normal wiring experiences a much greater level of unease caused by the prospect of invading another person's space and provoking a retaliation, so a person with normal wiring simply would not consider mugging a stranger for his phone.

There are other feelings being fed to the conscious by the subconscious for its consideration apart from those described above, for example whether a moral code is violated. Many criminals will, once again, have faulty wiring in this department also.

It is all quite straightforward really and I don't know why yourself and Alan Thomas cannot even admit that the pitbull is different in its behaviour from the labrador by virtue of its genes. Maybe you cannot admit this because once you do it begs the question - why not in humans also?

There is nothing original in anything I have said - it is the biology of behaviour. It only sounds original because it is taboo to apply it to humans ('dangerous talk' 'reminds me of the 30s'). The drawback of this insistence that we are all equal apart from nurture is the massive level of crime. Another drawback is that millions of children are suffering anxiety and stress at school because of the educational establishment's insistence on the policy of 'inclusiveness' of the badly behaved. They resist separating out the badly behaved as that would suggest they are not as good as everyone else.

I realise there is a nature/nurture mix, but the current elite pretend there is no nature component because to admit this implies that some are better than others, and it also implies that society would be better run for everyone if the better ones were in charge.

The puzzle is why the mugger with his inferior genes (I am only referring to those genes that determine such things as unease at invading other people's space and equanimity) has so much enthusiastic and dedicated support from the intelligent Left in our establishment. Why do they wish to nurture and protect these types? From where did these urges arise? And could a study of animal behaviour help to explain such aspects of human behaviour as the left wing judge being pro-crime in spite of this not being in his interest, his children's or society’s?

Andrew Platt - I will debate this next time with you because, as you say, the debate has moved on. And we might get somewhere as you are interested in the actual points rather than just in empty carping.

One point though - I meant the teenager who feels hardly any unease (I gave his unease a level of -2 but this was for the sake of argument to compare with a normal person's unease level of -3000, and was not meant to be taken as a precise mathematical value) at the prospect of robbing a phone is inferior only in terms of the wiring for his behaviour, and the same teenager might have superior genes for his sporting ability. However, I would not use the term 'genetically inferior' to describe human genes that give rise to, say, poor ability at sport, or maths, not because it is untrue, but because it would be hurtful. But I see no reason to hold back when describing criminals. I have no strong urge to protect their feelings, especially after all they have done and are doing and will continue to due under the protection and sponsorship of the Left. And especially if that recognition that they are genetically inferior in behavioural terms in the end results in a reduction in criminal behaviour within society. But I see no prospect of this in our sick, criminal-loving society where criminals are the favoured group, nurtured and protected by the state to such an extent that if, at an interview for the job of policeman, a candidate says he hates criminals and wants to bang them up, he would stand no chance of the state employing him.

There is no way the contents of a prison are a randon cross section of the population in terms of their genes for their behaviour.

Dermot Doyle - yes, many people are fed up with the disgraceful way the BBC is run. If only Cameron would stand up to them instead of creeping to them (before the election he said he was a fan of the BBC).I wonder what BBC people think when they see what people really think of them on the internet - eg in the DM poll a day or two ago about 86% said they are biased.

For goodness ' sake, I wonder what "value" you assign to your own "set of genes" - for the sake of argument. +5000 I suppose. But it might be - 478.946 for all I know. (I'll have to find a ruler, or a geiger-counter or a thermometer or a piece of string to measure it with. - with the untmost precision, I mean.)

I have difficulty in believing this. Bobsob - tell me you are joking. You've got to be. Put me out of my misery - please. Or my genes will go from +543 to -892.6 in two straight minutes - and back again half an hour later if I'm lucky.

No - seriously though, and just out of interest - could you assign a "value" to the sets of genes of all of us on this thread? I'm sure we'd all love to see your league table. Can one get relegated or promoted? Or is your gene-count static?

A final question: You are obviously qualified to assign exact "gene-values" to all Labradors and Pitbulls, teenagers, criminals and prison inmates - for the sake of argument, of course. So perhaps you could let us all know where you acquired your degree in genes-evaluation. - OK?

Missed last night's Question Time, but, judging by several press comments, it seems that Hugh Grant rather stole the show. Heard him on the radio earlier in the day and thought he made a good case against the excesses of the media.

Incidentally, since when did one need to be a 'world renowned politics expert' to appear on QT?

" 'Dangerous talk is code for 'you are not allowed to have Thought Crimes against criminals in our criminal-loving society as the left-wing has declared us all equal.'"

I certainly can't equal that, Bob. I can only assume it's either straight from the BNP book of handy quotes, or you really spend your own time dreaming this stuff up. And, with regard to my ability with numbers, I'm exactly 50/50 split on that thought...

Alan Thomas
You call me a lonely figure. Personal insult time again, as per your style. But actually this time I take it as a compliment as I would rather be on my own in a pub than be with a group who engage in endless empty talk and who are proud that they cannot understand anything with numbers in.

I did answer your question – I said we should stop paying the criminal underclass to breed. I would guess that most people agree, and that most people would also say the nasty people are not those like myself who wish to curtail the activities of the criminals, rather ‘nasty’ describes those who want to increase the activities of the criminals.

D Bunker says ‘you couldn’t make it up’ - do you mean the idea that pitbulls and labradors, when considered as groups, have different genes? Or do you mean the idea that the prison population has different genes from the rest of the population, when considered as groups? Which of these two is so unbelievable that it could not even be made up?

‘Dangerous talk’ is code for ‘you are not allowed to have Thought Crimes against criminals in our criminal-loving society as the left-wing elite has declared us all equal.’

Why bother misrepresenting what I said on the tail end of a debate where anyone can scroll down to my post and see that I did not claim ‘mathematical precision’? I carefully avoided claiming the figures were exact by the use of phrases such as ‘let us assign a value of’ and ‘Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the labrador’s subconscious feeds it a –60’. But I have no doubt that you would be happy to quibble about this point until your opponent is exhausted.

As for conversions from bad to good. I am not refering to Peter Hitchens, but, to take an example: a criminal who goes straight and becomes a good person. First of all in my opinion such conversions are rare. Many in prison are beyond reforming. Secondly, when reform does occur it is usually due to the person becoming older. The older version of self is different from the younger self. Often an older person whose genes provide them with a set of moral values is tormented by what the younger self did, but in such cases they should not be, as in one sense, they are a different person. There are many others who have no moral values either as a child, young adult, or older person. For these types the older version is never disturbed by what the younger version did.

Thanks for your posting (06 July 2011 at 12:57 PM), which I have only just spotted.

I will answer your points briefly, as I think everyone else has now moved onto the drugs threads.

1. Darwinism is not an alternative to ID. There is no credible scientific alternative to Darwinism. ID is not supported by the evidence and therefore has been rejected.
2. There is no reason to suppose that the existence of “self”, or the brain wiring necessary to create the concept of colour, cannot have arisen through the process of evolution.
3. We already examine the universe in ways well beyond the capabilities of our limited senses through the use of specialist instruments e.g. radio telescopes, electron microscopes. There is plenty we do not understand (e.g. what is dark matter?) but anything that we cannot detect, measure or test is in the realm of speculation, not science.

Darwinism will not become weaker. As a theory it either stands or falls. Extremely unlikely as it is, one day it may fall; yet the longer it continues to stand the more confidence we can have in it.

I’m not sure I approve of the wording in your later posting (07 July 2011 at 01:00 PM): “Two teenagers, one with a superior set of genes and one with an inferior set”. An individual’s genes, taken collectively, are neither superior nor inferior to anyone else’s. Does someone with an intellect greater than Einstein’s and an athletic ability greater than Usain Bolt’s have superior genes? What if they also possess a gene that will give rise to cancer at the age of forty? Comparing people with dogs is also a false comparison. While people’s behaviour is dictated by genes probably far more than they realise, you are neglecting the effect of nurture. To suggest that criminal behaviour is either significantly or wholly genetic is a gross oversimplification.

"Contrast this with resident QT panelists, with views favoured by the left, such as Shirley Williams, who are allowed to speak for much longer without interruption."

Posted by: Bob, son of Bob | 07 July 2011 at 01:13 PM

Funny enough, Ms Williams (along with world renowned politics expert Hugh Grant) was on last nights QT, and not only was she not interrupted, but, to emphasise your point, Dimbleby at one stage (about 40 minutes in), actually said: "I want to pick up on a point Shirley made". Can't imagine that for a point PH would make.

Bob, son of Bob - that is dangerous talk. Superior genes, inferior genes - who is to decide who has which. Hitler decided and we know what that led to.

Who are you to attach percentage values to people!s genes? And with such mathematical precision! Absolute nonsense. And now answer this:

Peter Hitchens, by his own admission, was an atheistic young layabout who led a pretty selfish and lawless life of which he is now ashamed. Did he then have the same genes as he has now - as a law-abiding, God-fearing Christian?

Or has his "set of genes" suddenly take a turn for the better. From 80% inferior to 90% superior, for example?

Or, if you prefer, what about Saul suddenly becoming Paul - a genetic revolution, or what?

No, you really couldn't make it up ... and it wouldn't matter if such talk were not so dangerous. - Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

I guess it was overly optimistic of me to expect a simple answer (and the hope of securing any response to the matter of a possible cure to the problem, as you see it, of hereditary characteristics was ignored in much the same manner).

If this is how you present your views to the guy in the pub I can only assume you are often a lonely figure.

Your 'doggy' story has appeared several times before. Now, I can accept that behaviour might well be influenced by upbringing, but if that were so, surely all dogs from one litter in the hands of one loving owner, would display identical characteristics. And that is not always the case. So perhaps it is a quirk of the genes, hence my question as to your solution.

If you feel that I am attempting to tease something nasty out of the woodwork, you are correct..

I take your point that underneath it all it is probably a desire for power that starts wars, with religion being a cover, we're always going to do it, religious or not

But admitting that, then we can indeed get back to atrocities committed in the name of religion - there is no doubt that the power that religious bodies held over ordinary people enabled them to commit grave acts, because they were told it was right, it was God's will

What I'm really getting at is the organised nature of religion, atheism has no such organisation, there's no way to control it - some regimes may be anti-religion, but ultimately, as Joshua Wooderson has pointed out there is another collective doctrine attempting to replace it at work (I repeat my point that I would not put atrocities that happened to be committed by Christians down to their religion, so I would not put those committed by atheists in communist regimes down to their religious beliefs)

It doesn't really matter what the person responsible believes, but the tool that is used - religion is one of those tools, fear, greed, pride, nationalism are other ones - I've yet to see atheism used in this manner, ie people being told to do X in the name of atheism

I concede it is possible - some sort of Dawkins-led militant atheist movement determined to wipe out the believers is plausible, but yet to happen

(I doubt I will return to this thread, I do not linger on the dead ones, but I caught your comment in a newer entry)

Joshua Wooderson – I used the term ‘Darwinism’ rather than ‘evolution’ as Darwinism is a process requiring no Artificial Intelligence component, whereas some variations of evolution can sometimes include a component of ID, eg the preloaded DNA theory, whereby the initial organisms had all the DNA for all life forms, which was supressed initially and released over time by chromosome rearrangements.

Re bats - they probably use sound to stimulate the vision generating part of their brain so they ‘see’ a buzz, possibly in clear colour.

Dermot Doyle – I suspect it is harder for a journalist to write a piece in the style of Peter Hitchens than it is to write a more wordy piece. He also says a lot in a few words on the TV and radio. This is a useful ability because he is not given much time and is constantly interrupted and booed when there is an invited audience. Contrast this with resident QT panelists, with views favoured by the left, such as Shirley Williams, who are allowed to speak for much longer without interuption.

Alan Thomas:
Consider a pitbull and a labrador. Both of the same species, with different genes for their behaviour, so this is compatible with both Darwinism and Design theories. The genes in these different dog species give rise to the neuron networks in the brain that analyse situations and ‘advise’ the conscious on how to behave. Consider this example:
A labrador and a pitbull both see another dog with a piece of meat. Let us assign a value of +20 for each dog for its desire to get the meat. This is presented to the dog’s conscious by its subconscious. But the dogs get other advice from their subconscious also. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the labrador’s subconscious feeds it a –60 at the prospect of antagonising the other dog and provoking a fight. And let us say the pitbull’s conscious is fed a weak value of –2 for the same prospect.
Result:
labrador: +20 –60 gives –40 and the dog with its meal is left alone.
pitbull: +20 –2 gives +18, so the notion of attacking the other dog wins easily and the pitbull attacks.
(Criminals tend to admire the pitbulls, and many wish that they could be more like them, although in nature the pitbulls would not last very long as those who live by the sword die by the sword)

Apply this to humans. Two teenagers, one with a superior set of genes and one with an inferior set observe a third person with an expensive mobile phone. The teenager with the inferior gene set and the one with the superior gene set both experience a desire to own the phone with a value of, say, +20.
The one with the inferior genes experiences a feeling of unease about provoking the phone owner to retaliation with a value of,
say –2, so he mugs the phone owner as the +20 easily wins over the –2.
The one with the superior genes experiences a feeling of unease about provoking the phone owner of, say –3000 for this course of action, so he would never dream of stealing the phone – it is a ‘no contest’ decision so overwhelming that the notion of robbing never even occurs to him.
Thus the genes influence behaviour. In my opinion, in our prisons there are more who assign a value of –2 as in the example above than there are those who assign a value of –3000.

What kind of society pays its criminal underclass to breed? Including free housing and free money, and whilst on one of their brief stays in prison, providing conjugal visits, and weekends in hotels, all whilst they are supposed to be serving a sentence? The answer is, a sick and suicidal society run by the left. The same kind of sick society that takes the money for this breeding programme from the better types who, as a consequence of having to pay for it all, often end up having fewer children themselves.

‘Darwinism is the alternative to some sort of ID... this leaves ID as the alternative.’
I think that the dichotomy between ID and evolution is a false one. Even if evolution isn’t true, we have no reason to suppose that it was design. If evolution isn’t right, we’ll have to suspend judgement, not assume that nature is the product of design, since its diversity could have a cause we hadn’t thought of.

So if proponents of ID succeed in debunking evolution, they’ll still have their work cut out in proving their theory. After all, Hume made arguments against design about a hundred years before Darwin, so the argument against design clearly doesn’t depend on evolution.

‘The existence and nature and properties and conditions for [the self’s] existence require some sort of explanation.’

Again, the unexplained doesn’t mean that God must plug the gap. There are good reasons for thinking that a scientific explanation of consciousness will be elusive, since, as the philosopher Thomas Nagel argues in his essay ‘What is it like to be a bat?’, any scientific account of it will move further from the subjective account, which seems crucial to an understanding of consciousness.

This doesn’t mean, though, that God is the answer. In fact, God (or should I say ‘an intelligent designer’?) doesn’t explain anything. How did God create consciousness? Surely God just raises further questions, as he is himself not only a conscious being, but also an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal one?

‘ ‘there is more’ beyond the ceiling to our understanding is a superior conclusion than ‘there is nothing more’.’

Nothing in the atheist worldview necessarily denies this. Some atheists might deny that there’s anything except the material world, but even this doesn’t preclude there being a lot we don’t understand e.g. dark matter. As for me, I accept that there might be something beyond the material world – though anything empirically investigable is arguably part of it – but the default assumption must be that phenomena are natural. We need independent proof that there’s such thing as the supernatural before we can advance it as an explanation for, say, consciousness.

In fact, in the very strict sense of the word, everyone - including the Pope - is a-gnostic, i.e. not knowing. Everyone, even including Hitchens, seems to agree that there is a difference between "knowing" and "believing". Knowledge would make belief unnecessary.

So we must all be ignorant of the ultimate truth, the answer to the mystery of our existence. All of us. Agnostics. (And if we get along nicely with the concept of gods, we are atheists too.) - That is very obvious and extremely simple.

And as to "choosing" to believe - no. You can choose a religion, say Hinduism or Pastafarianism. But you cannot believe in it, even if you try to choose to, without a reason to believe in it.

Example:- I see no serious reason to believe in Pastafarianism because it is really only a joke. And I presume others think likewise. The consequence is that it is impossible to genuinely "believe in" pastafarianism.

The same goes for belief in God. Unless you see some reason to believe in God, you can't, in spite of what Mr Hitchens says. It is impossible. - No choice.

Admittedly there are reasons galore. Accepting the bible as the truth, for example, or believing what preachermen say. But some of us are not so gullible and remain sceptical - but always ready and willing to be conviced.

In my case I've waited nearly eighty years for somebody to convince me and to provide me with a reason to believe in God - but they've only succeeded in convincing me of the opposite. So far, at least.

Hope you're well- and thanks very much for the kind words, much appreciated.

Must confess, I'm not always the voice of calm and reason. The pro-pot heads are already grating on my nerves with their bogus claims delivered in their usual smug know it all style on the more recent threads!

I can feel myself getting hot under the collar already...

Regards

ps I am glad you are still challenging some of the aggressive atheists on here as some of them do need a bit of ego puncturing...

Andrew Platt: “… provide a single coherent, logical reason why they believe in God, much less offer any hard evidence”

Michael Williamson: “The existence or otherwise of God cannot be proven by any test that we would apply to any other hypothesis. So the discussion is pointless”

Below are three pieces of evidence for some sort of Intelligent Design: one scientific, one philosophical, and one logical:

1) Darwinism is the alternative to some sort of ID, therefore if, when the predictions of Darwinism are tested according to the principles of good science, then if Darwinism fails to fulfil its predictions, this leaves ID as the alternative. It seems to me that it does fail all of its several predictions save one, although that particular prediction (similar animal, similar genome) is also compatible with ID.

2) The existence of self. We are basically observers of the physical world in a machine (a brain) that creates concepts such as sound and colour totally within the brain, and co-ordinates these with various pressure waves and reflected light waves, which possess in themselves no colour or sound, so that we can, by the creation of these concepts such as ‘green’ totally within our brains in response to various wavelengths, make sense of and observe the physical world and interact with it. By this matching of the physical world to concepts generated by the brain, our awareness of the world exists, and this awareness, or ‘observership’ is a phenomenon in a completely different category to, say, memories stored using neurons. Once the existence of this phenomenon is established, it exists as a concept, irrespective of whether it is in your particular body, unlike your memories which exist conditional upon your being born. And a phenomenon, once established, cannot be ‘unestablished’, any more than 2+2=4 can be unestablished. The existence and nature and properties and conditions for its existence require some sort of explanation.

3) There is no logical reason to assume that all that exists is limited to the realm that we can currently understand and observe using our brain’s limited ability to make a model of the real physical world using a small and limited range of concepts such as colour and sound that only exist because our brain neurons create these sensations for us (accurately co-ordinated with the real physical world). From a purely logic approach, ‘there is more’ beyond the ceiling to our understanding is a superior conclusion than ‘there is nothing more’.

Personally I see no evidence of God intervening in the world. Neither do I believe in things such as ESP, unlike Wesley Crosland, which is ironic as he is the atheist.

In the coming centuries, assuming societies do not collapse politically, and science is still allowed to progress, Artificial Intelligence computers might provide more insights into the mysteries of observership, or, alternatively, we might never comprehend it just as a dog will never comprehend 7x3=21. Furthermore, Darwinism could become ever weaker if true science is tolerated in future centuries.

"can any of us go through life without believing in anything? Personally I don't think that's possible but do feel free to persuade me otherwise if you feel this is the case"

Posted by: Mark | 04 July 2011 at 07:33 PM

Hello Mark, and I hope your fine. I've said it before, but you are a very good arbiter, often calming the waters with solid sense. My answer to your question is: not a chance! The arrival of sudden unexpected trauma (God forbid), quickly dispels complacency on that matter.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.